The past week has seen not one, but two events in the House of Commons regarding prisoners and offenders on the one hand and human rights on the other. The first was a debate over the issue of whether prisoners have the right to vote. The European Court of Human Rights have declared that a blanket ban on all prisoners is against their human rights, while David Cameron says the thought of giving prisoners the right to vote makes him feel sick. The second issue was an announcement that sex offenders will be given the right to appeal being placed on the Sex Offenders Register for life, following a ruling by the UK Supreme Court.
It would probably not surprise regular readers to this blog that I am in support of the rights of prisoners on both of these issues - and I will tell you why in blogs to come. (Of course, if you listen to the Government, nobody could actually support these rights - so maybe I'm in a minority of one! Or maybe the Government should stop telling the public what the public think!)
My wider issue however is with the selectivity of human rights. If rights are not absolute, but can be debated on and ignored if the Parliament of the day so decides, we are on very dangerous grounds. These rights affect us all; we are all governed by human rights, and these protect all of us. They shouldn't be made a political issue on which Parliaments may vote to decide whether they should be granted or not.
Of course some would say that what is at issue is not the rights themselves, but the courts' interpretation of them. This is a thin distinction - and I for one would much rather that independent courts and judges decide these issues, rather than those who hold the power and have an eye not on the rights of the minorities but on the votes of the majority. For me the choice between having experienced and trained judges interpret the law, or unqualified politicians who themselves show a scant regard to the law when it suits them, is a no-brainer. If that means courts may decide in a way I don't like then that is a price I'm willing to pay. That may be difficult for our Governments, who increasingly seem to forget that in the UK they do not hold absolute authority, but are themselves subject to the rule of law. What seems to be happening at the moment is if Parliament doesn't like the decisions, then they want their ball back! (The ball however was never theirs!)
The UK played a key role in the writing of the European Conventions of Human Rights in the 1950s. As a nation, along with the USA, we frequently criticise Islamic, Third World, and Far Eastern countries on the issue of human rights. Yet now, given a few decisions which we don't like, there is talk of abolishing the Human Rights Act and withdrawing from the jurisdiction of the European Court on Human Rights. What arrogance and what churlish nonsense. Would it not be nobler and humbler to wonder at why the rest of Europe can have no problems with these rights to prisoners, while the UK kicks up such a fuss? Maybe we could learn from our European neighbours and their treatment of prisoners and ex-offenders.
Recent Comments